Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Urovsky VILFORT, also known as Wally Bonneau, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael A. Corriero, J.), rendered August 11, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 3 1/212 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant claims his counsel provided ineffective assistance when, after two prospective jurors said that defendant's failure to testify might impact their decision, counsel declined the court's suggestion that he question them further, and permitted them to be seated without exercising any type of challenge. This claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters of strategy outside the record (see People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698 [1988]; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998, 457 N.Y.S.2d 238, 443 N.E.2d 486 [1982] ). The record does not reveal on what basis counsel might have concluded that these were desirable jurors for the defense, and that further inquiry was unnecessary. In particular, counsel may have been influenced by these jurors' demeanor, which is not reflected in the record. On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998]; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984] ). Viewing the voir dire as a whole, the ambiguous comments by the two jurors did not cast serious doubt on their ability to be fair (see People v. Burts, 237 A.D.2d 155, 655 N.Y.S.2d 11 [1997], lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 856, 661 N.Y.S.2d 182, 683 N.E.2d 1056 [1997] ). Furthermore, in the colloquy between counsel and the court concerning these jurors, counsel stated that his client intended to testify (a prediction that proved accurate), and that counsel believed this rendered moot any concern about the jurors' comments. On this record, we find counsel's conclusion to be reasonable.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 05, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)